Hoax Alert: Codex Sinaiticus

The video (YouTube) [at the 2013 Eastern Regional Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, held at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (LBTS), Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary — Oops, the Liberty Baptist (LU), Ergun and Emir Caner hoaxers are now busy hoaxing the validity of the fraudulent Occult version Codex Sinaiticus — Note: the video is mostly harmless and actually inadvertently does more to reveal Sinaiticus as a hoax — Also Note: the Reformed Theologians (i.e. Dr. James White) have their hair on fire, because their favorite occult bible version ‘Sinaiticus’ is being revealed as a modern day hoax and are busy trying to ‘Cook the Books’ in a scholarly manner of course, as they strive to validate any bible version other than the generally accepted and trusted 1611 KJV Bible] below was posted on James White’s Alpha & Omega ministry website, as an alleged refutation of the claims of Constantine Simonides. The headline for the article appears thus: “Evangelical Textual Scholar Debunks Chris Pinto’s Conspiracy Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was a Forgery.” It is worth noting that the scholar in question (Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary) does not mention Chris Pinto, or the film Tares Among the Wheat. Had Dr. Wallace actually seen the film, his comments would most likely have been orchestrated differently, and he might have even been convinced to change his mind.

Dr. Wallace is obviously unfamiliar with certain particulars surrounding the Simonides affair, and we believe this is not entirely his fault, since this history has been largely buried for more than a century. The purpose of Tares is to show the untold history surrounding the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, and to draw attention to the fact that this single manuscript has been used to destroy confidence in the Bible as the inspired Word of God. As such, whether or not this codex is genuine becomes very significant.

A few things: Dr. Wallace says that Tischendorf had “exposed” Simonides as a forger years earlier, which is untrue. In 1856, Simonides presented the only known copy of the Shepherd of Hermas in Greek [actually it was from the Codex Fredrico-Augustanus that was later renamed and presented as the newly discovered Codex Sinaiticus] at the University of Leipzig and it was originally embraced by the scholars there as authentic. Several of the scholars published the MS. (known as Codex Lipsiensis) and were very excited about it. According to Simonides, this provoked jealousy from Tischendorf, who then declared the work to be a forgery that had been created in the Middle Ages, and taken from a corrupted Latin text. But Tischendorf did not declare that Simonides himself had created the forgery. Tischendorf believed it had been created by someone else hundreds of years before. Then, three years later, the only other known copy of the Shepherd of Hermas was revealed as part of the Codex Sinaiticus. It turns out that it matched the one presented by Simonides in 1856. This compelled Tischendorf to retract his former assertion. Why? Because if he continued to denounce Simonides’ MS. he would, by default, have denounced his own discovery.

… Also, we wonder if Dr. Wallace is aware that the monks at St. Catherine’s Monastery claim to this very day that Tischendorf was lying about how he found the manuscript. I find it interesting that he does not mention this in his presentation. He also fails to mention that the British Library has all but officially rejected Tischendorf’s story, in favor of a “politically correct” version that is less offensive to the monks there. In the newspapers of the time, it was said that Tischendorf’s story was obviously “made up.”

Furthermore, Henry Bradshaw (as we show in Tares Among the Wheat) had no scholarly reasons for embracing Codex Sinaiticus. His argument was that he didn’t know why he believed it, but that his “senses” told him it was real. That’s it. There was no deep scientific argument. Just his senses. This becomes very significant once you realize that Bradshaw was said to be one of the key reasons why the MS. was eventually embraced.

Further Reference Materials:

Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides affair: An examination of the nineteenth century claim that Codex Sinaiticus was not an ancient manuscript [book]

Codex Fredrico-Augustanus – the supposedly undiscovered Codex Sinaiticus previously published under a different title

The Shepherd of Hermas [Satan] – The Enigma Of The Shepherd Of Hermas – Even though it is said [unsubstantiated] of the Shepherd of Hermas that it was “…the most popular books, if not the most popular book, in the Christian Church during the second, third, and fourth centuries…”, the fact of the matter is that it is impossible for the modern believer, biblical expert or scholar, or critic, to in any manner understand the message that it bears. And what this means is that [the Bible if read in context with The Occult Shepherd of Hermas writings] it is virtually impossible for the modern congregations of believers and their critics alike, to understand the original teachings of Jesus and the religion of [the original Christian Church] TheWay. Why? How can I make such a statement that on the surface would seem patiently absurd? The answer is that because our culture and thinking has been build upon a defective Paradigm of Thought that is foundational to all our modern ideas about self and the life that man is living, everything that has been built upon that foundation – i.e., our philosophies, our religions, and even our ideas about self, has all been severely limited because of the defective foundational Paradigm of Thought upon which the whole of our structure of mind has been built. In the example of the scripture that was the most widely used among the earliest of Gentile Christians, the fact that “…some [Christians] have doubted whether the work should even be considered as Christian” [then there] is [the occult contrived] proof [opinion] that modern Christianity has absolutely nothing in common with the original teachings of Jesus and TheWay.

Westcott and Hort founded several occult societies, two of which were The Hermes [Satan] Club and The Ghostly Guild. These were not merely school-boy projects. They were created at one of the highest learning institutions in the world’s largest imperial world-power at that time – Great Britain. Members of these clubs and the occult associations that they went on to found, such as The Society for Psychical Research started the modern New Age movement, became and were prominent members of British Royalty and politics, as well as occupied the highest positions in the Anglican Church including that which is equivalent to that of the Pope in the RCC, the Archbishop of Canterbury. To say that Westcott and Hort were well connected is an understatement.

Doing searches on some of the names, organizations and movements listed in the essay below are real eye-openers if you really want to know what was going on with the occult movement in the latter half of the 1800’s and the connection that Wescott and Hort had to it.

The New Testament Scheme

The progenitor of the Society for Psychical Research and the Fabian Society was the Cambridge University Ghost Society, founded in 1851. In 1853, two years after founding said Ghost Society, F.J.A. Hort and B. F. Westcott agreed, upon the suggestion of publisher Daniel Macmillan, to take part in “an interesting and comprehensive ‘New Testament Scheme,'” that is, to undertake a joint revision of the Greek New Testament. The project was withheld from public knowledge during the twenty years required by Westcott and Hort to complete the New Greek Text and during the subsequent ten years during which an English Revision Committee revised the 1611 Authorized Version. However, during this period of nearly thirty years, Drs. Westcott and Hort maintained their involvement in the Spiritualist pursuits of their various secret societies and political cabals: the Hermes Club, Ghost Society, Company of Apostles, and Eranus. The following entry appears in April, 1853 in The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort:

“One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He (Westcott) and I are going to edit a Greek text of the New Testament some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply [occult] rich materials, but not nearly enough; and we hope to do a good deal with Oriental versions. Our object is to supply clergymen generally, schools, etc., with a portable Greek text which shall not be disfigured with Byzantine corruptions.” (Italics in original)

The elimination of [alleged] “Byzantine (KJV Bible) corruptions” [i.e. this is a direct attempt to discredit and alter the 1611 KJV Bible] would be the substitution [insertion] of minority (1%) Alexandrian [Egyptian] manuscripts for [into] the [Byzantine] Textus Receptus, the Received Text which had been recognized for nearly two millennia of church history and which agrees with the majority (99%) of manuscripts extant. Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) was professor of Classical and German Philology in Berlin, and also a German rationalist and textual critic who produced modern editions of the New Testament in Germany in 1842 and 1850.

The [Occult] manuscripts in question were found to derive from an underground of occult scripture within Christendom that has been passed through successive generations since the apostolic era. As the occult Traditions have sought to infiltrate and transform the secular establishment, the Church has historically been attended by an Alexandrian Tradition, which seeks to smuggle Gnostic doctrines into the Sacred Canon via the “revision” or “correction” of Scripture. Bible scholar, Dr. Herman Hoskier parallels the folly of Israel returning to Egypt to the Anglican scribes searching for inspired writings in the ancient house of bondage:

“Nearly all revision appears to center in Egypt, and to suppose all the other documents wrong when opposed to these Egyptian documents is unsound and unscientific . . . those who accept the Westcott and Hort text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped [by fraudulent scholars] as genuine.” David Otis Fuller (pp. 141-43)